The article is dedicated to the new significance of the national issue as a challenge posed to the contemporary Russian liberalism. The purpose of the study is to transfer the clash of liberal and nationalist ideologies from mass media and blogs into the realm of academic conceptual analysis. In the first part of the article, the key definitions of nationalism are examined and placed on a scale compatible to the described range of position developed by Russian liberals with regard to nationalist ideology. Then the two continuums are used to trace the main criteria of (in)compatibility between liberalism and nationalism. Subsequently, the focus shifts on the contemporary Russian liberalism to trace possible implications of the discovered (in)compatibilities. Finally, the conclusions contain a series of suggestions on the possible moves that have not been taken by liberals in their attempts to come to terms with the challenge of nationalism.
The article deals with representations of Mikhail Gorbachev, last leader of the USSR, in
textbooks on the history of three Post-Soviet countries: Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. The
personality of Gorbachev is seen in the wider framework of attitudes to the “late Soviet” and its
embedding in three histories based on the official discourses. The results of historical textbook
analysis show the ambiguity and diversification of these attitudes reflected in three “faces” of
Gorbachev changing with the pace of perestroika. It is seen that negative attitudes to the personality
of Gorbachev are connected to his representations within the framework of Machiavelist elite
theories and general fight for power, with certain manifest or latent nostalgia for the Soviet past.
The case of Ukraine is the most in contrast with a positive evaluation of Gorbachev’s personality
and activities in comparison to Russia and Belarus.
This paper is devoted to the problem of the militarization of culture in modern Russia. The two key scientific fields are public history and the politics of memory. Firstly, based on the official documents and statements of authorities, the paper will characterize the relations between the state and Russian cinema as well as the role of history and historical films in the contemporary politics of memory. Secondly, after identifying the role of popular cinema in Russia, the paper will explore the characteristics of historical periods in popular films, based on the hypothesis that the Russian past is mostly represented around or inside war, while the criticism of war is becoming less and less important for popular cinema
From the first years of existence of Belarus as an independent state the educational policies were directed at preserving the "best in the world" Soviet higher education. In realistic terms the Belarusian system of higher education was "resovetized". Meanwhile, the thesis of world supremacy of Soviet higher education has been critically rethought by modern researchers and has long been no longer self-evident. On this basis arise two questions: what allows us to call the Soviet higher education system “better”? Is it legitimate and in what respect to consider the Belarusian higher education system as an successor of the best achievements of Soviet higher education? The author of the article answers these questions based on the explication of the genesis and comparative analysis of the Soviet and Belarusian higher education systems in three key parameters: management, quality and the social dimension. The paper substantiates the thesis that the Belarusian system of higher education is close to the Soviet higher school of the 1930–40s in the style of management, in the 1950s in the quality of education, in the 1940–50s. by social dimension and the end of the 1980s. by the nature of the accumulated problems.